- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
No, he didn’t prove the globe earth he proved that the FE map is accurate.
He proved the Globe and he pointed out the squares represented the same size but were projected out toward Antarctica. Thus, Australia was around the same size as the US, even though the map had it look like Australia was much bigger. Now he may have said that the Flat Earth map also worked and that is up for debate, but he proved the Globe Earth flight time which some Flat Earthers actually thinks debunks a Globe Earth. If you don’t believe me, then read the comments. I am not the only one. One comment mentioned how a person was open minded about the Flat Earth but how the video convinced him it was a globe. Seriously go take a look. And I think the guys honesty is great. Many Flat Earthers wouldn’t dare point this out because it would be detrimental to their own argument. But I believe in telling the truth right to the end and see where you end up.
Start the video from here to see where he confirms the Globe Earth works with direct flights between Sydney and South America.
Mike, as for the Mercury and 747 question, give me some time and I will do the math myself and give you my thoughts. Too busy to do that right now. Actually I stared on it, but got stuck and thought I had better get my work done first.
T8: If the ground, or water, surface is colder than the air above it, a cold, dense layer of air forms close to the surface, causing light to be refracted downward…
And so you can see yet another example of how one heliocentric argument kills another. In the selenelion eclipses, when we can see both the sun and moon above the earth at the same time, the argument is that they are both really hidden behind the curved horizon, but we are seeing their light refracted back up over the horizon, right?
Okay, but the moon side of the earth would have a cold surface, because it has just been nighttime for 12 hours. So while they can say (but never prove) that the hot sun side would make the sun refract up over the horizon, the cold moon side would refract the moon’s light down – not up over the horizon.
The entire model is a make-it-up-as-we-go situation. And every time observation doesn’t match model, they just adjust the model even more.
My simple and quick explanation for this is as follows:
During a Blood Moon, if you were standing in the right place, you would see the Earth’s shadow cast fully on the moon right giving that reddish glow. And if you were close to that location but perhaps north or south of the exact location, then you would see a partial shadow right and by extension of that, part of the light would shine through. Good so far? So what happens if you move exactly opposite to that non exact position that showed the light coming through. Reason would suggest the light would be on the opposite part of the moon.
I don’t know if it is possible, but if not, then what would the moon look like from a northerly position and southerly position away from the exact spot of the full Blood Moon?
“During the season when the lakes are generally colder than the air over them–April to August, but particularly in the spring–they extract heat from the overlying atmosphere.”
This picture was taken April 28th, 2015…
So the surface temperature is colder than the air temperature at that time of year, right? And what did T8’s source just say?
“If the ground, or water, surface is colder than the air above it, a cold, dense layer of air forms close to the surface, causing light to be refracted downward as it travels…”
Yet their explanation for why we can see Chicago from 60 miles away is because the light refracted upwards – back over the curve to the camera’s view, right?
Hmm…
Downward so it hits the eye of the viewer rather than upward into space and away from the viewer? Look the reality is we are not experts and most sane people are not going to trade away the reality of expeditions and direct flights over Antarctica, boats sailing the Southern Ocean, the Space Program, Satellite industry, photos of Earth, and videos of earth and the moon for some math equations or phenomena that they are not expert in and mostly do not understand anyway. Maybe if someone put a video camera on a balloon or rocket and pierced the dome and had lots of people involved and did it live on TV, then I may take it seriously. But there isn’t one ounce of evidence for the Flat Earth and tons of evidence for the globe earth of which you write off with one stroke of the pen by saying ‘Conspiracy’.
Honestly Mike, for every small boat brought back into view over the supposed horizon is a perfect explanation as to how to make that happen followed by ocean liners and cargo ships doing the very thing you say is impossible. And as for eclipses, they prove a Globe Earth not a flat one. How the hell does a Flat Earth ever produce an eclipse with a circular shadow anyway. It is mind boggling that Flat Earthers even bring that up because the Flat Earth is the theory has no explanation , zero, zip, nought, nothing, when it comes to eclipses.
Common sense needs to prevail, but obviously it is not because you bought into this and defending it at all costs. And we won’t be able to answer all your questions I suspect because some of them take too much time to research or test. So far your smoking guns in most cases have a known logical explanation and in other cases, we haven’t discovered the answers yet is what I strongly suspect.
But certainly, no one at this stage given the evidence so far is going to trade the Globe Earth smoking cannon for unusual and rare partial eclipse where the light is at the bottom of the moon that supposedly disproves a globe earth and definitely a flat one. And I gave it my 2 cents worth on a possible explanation anway. Read my post above .
And so you can see yet another example of how one heliocentric argument kills another. In the selenelion eclipses, when we can see both the sun and moon above the earth at the same time, the argument is that they are both really hidden behind the curved horizon, but we are seeing their light refracted back up over the horizon, right?
Pretty sure I already covered this. Yes it is a very short lived event because refraction extends the real visible time by minutes only. I was in Auckland once and experienced this myself and took some photos. The moon was huge (obviously distorted) and rising up while the sun was setting behind me. That photo showed the red glow from a sunset and the moon had risen up quite fast. It was short lived. Refraction from what I have read does some pretty weird things at times, but it is logical. We already know that light can reflect, bend, refract, and be absorbed. Here are common examples of refraction that you would have similarly seen many times in your life.
T8: “Start the video from here to see where he confirms the Globe Earth works with direct flights between Sydney and South America.”
I think you are still missing the point. He was not saying that is the flight path that should be taken on a FE map but that if that path was taken it has the same distance as on the globe map. He was understanding the FE map in a more correct way. This would also answer some of your questions about the boat races around the Southern Hemisphere and the distances there.
I hope he pursues this and comes up with more data.
T8, look at your pictures, the glass, the straw, the duck and the truck. Do they look natural or are they obviously distorted?
Now look at the skyline of Chicargo, does it look distorted? No it doesn’t because it is an actual visual representation of the buildings! We know this because Rob Skiba chartered a boat and filmed the entire trip across the water. He proved that this is not a mirage – he even made tee shirts that said that! Where’s the curve?!
The Flat Earther who proved the Globe Earth Part II
I think you are still missing the point. He was not saying that is the flight path that should be taken on a FE map but that if that path was taken it has the same distance as on the globe map. He was understanding the FE map in a more correct way. This would also answer some of your questions about the boat races around the Southern Hemisphere and the distances there.
You are missing my point though. He inadvertently says the Globe Earth is correct with the flight paths and measurements of countries. He uses Google Earth and a flight web site and works out the path and time and it matches. This is contrary to Flat Earth videos of flight paths that are considered illogical and even wrong.
He also says that Australia and the US are around the same size, by demonstrating that the squares are meant to be interpreted as the same size. So they are equivalent even though the map looks otherwise due to the perspective. People picked up on these points if you read the comments. Many of the commenters go as far to say that he proved the Globe Earth. And if he was trying to prove the Flat Earth, well that point was lost because the glaring Globe Earth test, passed. lol.
Another thing. The Flat Earth map stretches out Australia and New Zealand. He makes the case that the squares represent the same size. So was his point something along the lines of Flat Earthers need their own map or something. Cause all that jumped out to most people was the Globe Earth works. I will list some comments posted in that Youtube video for you in the next post, in case you think I’m exaggerating.
Comments made about the video
Rob, you just proved the earth is a globe. Your efforts can be put to a better use. You’ve been sent on a wild-goose chase and it’s high time to decide whether you’re being persistent or stubborn.
Soooo, will you commit to it now? Is the earth flat or not.
ok, am i missing something here? if the grids towards the antarctica are skewed to be triple the width, they are being skewed because they represent dimensions on a globe, and this map is displayed on a disc. therefore if we account for the skewing and say these grids towards antarctica are the same size as the ones near the arctic, all we’ve done is created a ball again.
Great job, Rob! You just showed us why the flat-earth map makes no sense when you look at flight plans in the southern hemisphere, while making perfect sense on a globe. At the same time you’re also showing us why the “flat earth map” really isn’t a flat earth map, but rather a projection from the globe earth on a flat map, hence the necessary distortion of the southern hemisphere on it. Nice Job! I will use your video as proof for the globe and link to it to other flat ignorants around the globe! 😉
And why is the distortion necessary? If the earth is flat, no distortion needed. What you’ve done here is help prove the globe earth, genius!
The message I’m getting out of this video is the flight times make sense because the map is a just a flat representation of a globe!
I’m sorry but all you have done there is prove that the Gleason’s map is based on the globe model. Unless of course, the landmasses in the southern hemisphere are actually stretched, which would mean that everything would stretch, even people. That’s not very plausible is it. If the world truly is flat, it would be quite easy to map it out. If the world is a globe, then every map drawn (however its drawn) would be distorted somehow. Which of these two options do we see?
It’s funny how when you bend the flat earth map to fit a globe, all the sudden all the inconsistencies start to work out.
Thanks for ( even though a bit awkwardly done) describing how the globe earth is projected on a flat map. Maybe your flat Earth follows can better understand now. Its an awkward explanation since you started with a flat map, then described how it would fit on a globe instead of the other way around. But in the end you showed for the distances to work the earth would be a sphere. You showed how the southern hemisphere is stretched on that map and how it would be pulled back together if you draped it over a globe. Good work.
I’ve just watched this again. I think you’ve just successfully explained the Earth is a globe and the Gleason map is a flat version of it, distorted latitudinally. It’s only radially equidistant from the centre!
hmm.. it’s very confusing because somehow if I was to walk across “same” square on the inside of the map it would take me as long as on the outside? even if it looks much wider on this “as is” map?The problem with accusing Globe Earthers of using heliocentric perspective to explain the sunrise and sunset
Mike and Dig have accused us as being wrong because we do not take a literal stance on the creation event. Rather we say the days were not necessarily 24 hours and the sun appeared in the firmament but could have been part of the heavens and earth in Day 1. We say the sun rises and sets because the earth orbits orbits the sun and spins as well. . However, I saw this comment in the video being discussed from Rob above and noticed a doozy of a comment worthy to be brought up in this discussion.
Hey Rob, there is a problem with this circular map according to the bible. Eric Dubay embraces it because the ying-yang symbol is representative of the sun and moon circuits on this map. However, the bible says that the sun sets and rises. If Christians are going to be strict “literalists” and claim that the bible is historically describing the sun setting and rising, then the circle map and its sun circuit is not correct because the sun does not actually go down or up in this circular map.
So while we are supposedly making a mistake because we do not take it all literally and show perspective as describing the effect, you are actually doing the very same thing. If you are going to be literal about it all, then show us a new model where the sun rises and sets and not from a certain perspective because you made it clear that you do not agree with us using perspective to explain it.
Why is it bad for us to explain it as perspective, but okay for you to do it?
Take note, this applies to you
Here is another comment in that video and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
I had a lot of respect for your body of work as a whole until this flat earth stuff. Give it up rob. It’s not correct, I’m sorry it’s not. And further more it is destroying any validity any of your other work may have had.
This is the danger I mentioned earlier in the discussion. That all your previous work and posts here on this site and others as well as to people you have taught. will now be cast into doubt.
T8, look at your pictures, the glass, the straw, the duck and the truck. Do they look natural or are they obviously distorted?
Now look at the skyline of Chicargo, does it look distorted? No it doesn’t because it is an actual visual representation of the buildings! We know this because Rob Skiba chartered a boat and filmed the entire trip across the water. He proved that this is not a mirage – he even made tee shirts that said that! Where’s the curve?!
I haven’t got time to analyse this, but here is someone who took the time to do it. I don’t even have time to analyse the debunk, but skimming over it shows me that a lot of research went into the explanation and visually I can see the points that come to my mind about this.
https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.htmlSuch photos are actually proof of Earth’s curvature.
T8…..Good work. Satan is trying to get us to focus endless hours of our time on this smoke and mirrors, garbage, we have undeniable proof, ton of proof, that proves the earth is indeed round.
The only thing this waste of time shows us, is how really gullible some people can be, about some things.
Anyway you’ve done a good job proving those errors brother.
Peace and love to you and yours…….gene
Ed: Yes I agree simple one part questions are easily answered AND easily understood.
However, two part questions answered as a “no” is not so easily understood…
Okay Ed, here’s a one part Yes or No question for you…
Does Micah 5:2 say that the one who would go forth from Bethlehem and rule Israel had his origins in the ancient past? YES or NO?
Hi Mike,
No …Corrupted perversions of God’s word mean NOTHING to me;
here’s what Micah 5:2 actually says:“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose
goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)Here is the gist of what the verse says:
The Spirit of Christ came From eternity to Bethlehem:
This prophecy is fulfilled in the following verse…“For unto you is born this day in the city of David
a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)Its as simple as that!
____________
God bless
Ed JHi Mike,
Point #1 “The Spirit of Christ” came from eternity to Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)
Point #2 “Bethlehem” means “house of Bread”1) Tthe Physical: “Jesus of Nazareth”, “As for the earth, out of it cometh bread” (Job 28:5)
2) The Spiritual: “the Spirit of Christ”, “my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world”
(John 6:32-33)____________
God bless
Ed JT8, if the distances are indeed on a plane earth and we are told that it is the distances on a globe, how does it prove the globe to just say that the distances would be correct on a globe? You are assuming a globe to be true and therefore the distances on the plane earth corroborate them.
If that didn’t come out right let me state it another way; If the distances are confirmed on a plane earth map then would they be correct on a globe map? I’m not sure but I kind of doubt it.
Don’t place too much faith in the shills at the FE websites. They are there for a nefarious purpose.
You are correct that we take exception to you and others that do not take the creation event literally when the language is meant to be that way. There are numerous examples of poetic, symbolism, metaphorical, etc. language in the scriptures but there is also an abundant supply of literal passages that are evident as well. The creation event is one of them.
It’s not a good idea to say don’t confuse me with the math it’s just perspective. At any rate I’m interested in finding out what you think about the Chicargo skyline.
If that didn’t come out right let me state it another way; If the distances are confirmed on a plane earth map then would they be correct on a globe map? I’m not sure but I kind of doubt it.
Try to pay attention to what I am actually saying.
- Flat Earthers have been debunking flight paths for some time.
- A Flat Earther proves the flight paths work on a globe earth.
- Problems with the Flat Earth model go away when you assume the squares are all the same size, but that is actually applying a Globe Earth on a Flat map.
Conclusion, it points back to a globe earth, simple as that. The truth has a funny way of doing that. I am not saying that this alone is enough to prove a globe earth, but that it points to it. It is a proof or two proofs. If you still have a problem with this, then it is only making you look more gullible and stubborn at the same time and that doesn’t bode well for your point of view and perspective.
You are correct that we take exception to you and others that do not take the creation event literally when the language is meant to be that way.
Why do you do it then with regard to sunset and sunrise. In both models the sun doesn’t literally rise and set. Both models explain it as perspective from the viewer. A little common sense goes a long way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
